Subject:
|
Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 12 May 2001 19:05:19 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
812 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> Saddam sees confusion in Iran and makes a grab for the oil fields (and not
> the first time they've fought about that). Unless you subscribe to
> orbiting-mind-control lasers (fnord!) that's pretty much right as Saddam's
> feet. You're not really linking the skullduggery to the act - all it seems
> you are offering is just it's-all-a-conspiracy vagueness. I'm not saying
> that there isn't sneaky stuff happening, but whitewashing Saddam over what
> was ultimately his decision seems the apologist route.
They guy's a greedy thug and a butcher, no problem with that. Invading
Kuwait was his fault, no problem with that. But we still supported the
bastard throughout the 80's, right? The Kuwaitis still aggravated the issue
and America rejected Iraq's pleas in the U.N. And we knew what was going to
happen and let it because it was good for business since the Cold War was
over. That's my take on it. Not the apologist, just owing up to what really
happened and what our part was.
> Perhaps I wasn't clear. I understand you are sceptical of the Saudis and
> Kuwaitis - does the *rest* of the arab world support Saddam snatching Kuwait?
I see what you're saying. Well, I believe none of the Arab nations supported
the invasion (I'm not sure of Libya or Syria) but most of them, with the
exception of Saudia and Kuwait, did not support Western military
intervention. They called it an "Arab matter", just like our ambassador told
Iraq before the invasion.
<snipped my comments on launches>
> I think I've mentioned my source to you before - the rocket launches are
> minimal.
I hope so.
> You used the word "monopoly". Not "most". Not "greatest". Not "equal to
> everyone else combined". Not...whatever. You're overstating the case,
> which is what my point is.
Actually, you introduced the word "monopoly" before that but you're right,
it does overstate the case.
> John Wayne was a racist, but telling people that upsets them. Anyway, you
> are correct, too many people think we can do no wrong, nor do evil things.
> Sometimes we actually do good things, sometimes we just try and put a good
> face on it, sometimes we even try and do good things and get lost along the
> way, and other times we do fairly rotten things. Those that key only on the
> good aren't being realistic, but those that just key on the bad are equally
> unrealistic.
Agreed, there are a lot of noble things to mention about our country,
especially in the field of medicine. However, there are so many rotten
things, especially in the past two decades, that seem to overshadow the
good. I used to be more idealistic but I'm seeing too much of our nation's
motives being driven by greed rather than a genuine attitude of world
solidarity.
Dan
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
246 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
